Search results

In recent years, the relationship between Manchester United fans and their club has been put under the spotlight due to the contentious relationship between the fanbase and the club’s American owners, the Glazer family. However, the commercialisation of Manchester United and their ramping up of their associated brand accelerated massively during the 1990s, as a result of the coincident timing of the country’s glamour club returning to dominance during a period of ever-greater financial returns for top-flight success. As the undoubted commercial trailblazers in English football (and the first English club to be listed on the Stock Exchange), analysing their development during the 1990s is, arguably, the best way of understanding how and why top-flight football clubs operate the way they do and, in a knock-on effect on the league’s competitiveness, why the clubs below them can so easily fall away.

This is a paper about the soft and hard drivers for English sub-national governance. It posits that the recurrence of claims for inter-urban linkages across the two distinct conurbations of the North-West of England have been bedevilled by entrenched differences in the leadership cultures of the city-regions.

It contrasts the highly localised forms of ‘soft power’ – or the ways in which leaders mobilise brands, plans and strategies to tell stories about place – arguing that there is a considerable divergence between the way that this symbolic capital has been deployed within and across the two city-regions. Whilst this is striking it is still true that ‘Hard powers’ – fiscal, legislative or regulatory mechanisms – are elusive for both Manchester and Liverpool notwithstanding recent moves towards combined authorities for both places. The only model of English urban governance with statutory powers covering transport, economic development and planning is located in Greater London, a legacy of the post-RDA institutional landscape in England.

This paper argues that it would be extraordinary if forms of leadership capable of meaningfully connecting the two cities cannot be found but that this must be seen within a sclerotic English context where there is a huge disconnect between desirable form and functions of urban governance, and the effect this has on regional economic performance. It concludes that local government austerity has had a negative effect on the sort of ‘soft power innovations’ necessary in both cities and that rhetorics of English localism have provided neither a propitious context for inter- nor intra-urban governance innovation.

This paper seeks to describe some of the ways in which collaborations within the city-regions of Manchester and Liverpool have been achieved, making the case that there have been divergent governance experiments which may hamper the aspiration for extensions beyond their border and for intra-urban leadership and governance which combines the two great cities and their areas of influence.

With over 4.5 million objects and specimens from both the natural and human worlds, Manchester Museum, part of The University of Manchester, is the largest University Museum in the United Kingdom. By virtue of its position within The University of Manchester, learning and research are central to Manchester Museum’s work. The Museum has a track-record of educational work, from the ‘Children’s Museum Club’, a travelling school loans service set up in 1954, to the founding of a dedicated Education Department in 1981. Throughout its long history, the Museum has always held objects and collections at the heart of its popular learning offer. More recently, the growth of the learning team led to the creation of a set of learning principles to underpin its work. These principles – that learning should be object-centred, dialogic, imaginative, personalised, multi-sensory, collaborative and exploratory – are all based on inquiry-based learning and aim to foster a research-based disposition in learners.

As a University Museum with engagement at its heart, Manchester Museum is now looking to transform the third floor of its building into a space themed entirely around ‘research’. This redevelopment, due to open in March 2015, will see the creation of a new visitor research space – ‘The Study’. This unique development will extend the successful inquiry-based learning approach used with schools and colleges, into a public research space for all visitors, with collections at its heart.

This chapter builds upon the analysis of the last chapter, as fans have to deal with the issues that arise from their team’s financial superiority. Here, we question what happens when that financial superiority is accompanied by significant moral and ethical issues. Recent involvement of state actors in the ownership of English football has been evidencable and occasionally appears clear. Various reflexes and cognitive distancing occur from fandoms when football club ownership engages in practices that, according to the normative models that fans ascribe to their clubs, are mutually exclusive with the values of the fanbase and the club’s history. A common form of fan reflex often takes the form of distancing the players on the pitch from the club’s institutional structures, effectively teasing out the matchday experience from the structures that benefit from the raw emotion it generates. Another reflex is questioning why the fan should surrender their club when a morally, ethically problematic ownership model has acquired it. Here we have perhaps the greatest challenge to the normative model and, rather than negotiating that tension, as often as not the response is to try and ignore it.

This chapter utilises the analogy of ‘parasitical resistance’ (Fisher, 2020) to explore how young people act and interact in ‘adult’ contexts, where they are welcome as young people but still subordinated because of their age, and sometimes their gender. The analysis of young people’s participation in the Greater Manchester Youth Combined Authority suggests that young people who participate in formal, adult spaces need to be able to find the ‘play in the system’ to be heard and to be involved in decision-making. In this sense, the young people embraced a form of ‘parasitism’ and developed tactics to ‘effect subversion from within hegemonic structures’ (Fisher, 2020). This new paradigm argues that resistance is less likely to be found in a radical activism now and is more likely to be found instead in the mutually exploitative relations between dominant hosts (in this case, ‘adults’) giving of their power just enough, and ‘parasitical’ actors (in this case, young people) taking only as much as they need for their own ends. The chapter does not argue that young people are ‘parasites’ at the adult table but, rather, it acknowledges young people must find ways to ‘play the game’ in spaces where longstanding tools of radical resistance have limited effect. The ‘play’ is not unproblematic, however, and the chapter concludes that young people need more than just ‘being heard’ and contributing to something that is achievable, but not especially disruptive or redistributive. Instead, involvement of young people should be focused on achieving genuine parity that can benefit as many marginalised and precarious young people as possible.

This chapter sets out the political participation of a group of young socialists in Manchester. The analysis indicates that the young socialists’ participation was driven by a critique of the structural conditions of capitalism. The young people in this group deliberately eschewed discussions of individual stories in their group’s activism, or in recounting what brought them to the group. In doing so, they reject the place of individual needs and stories (framed here as an element of ‘identity politics’) in bringing about the societal change they believe is necessary. This is not to say that they deny the place or role of identity politics but, rather, that they want to supplement achieving change in individual categories of oppression by creating the economic (i.e. non-capitalist) conditions where all oppressions are eliminated. The young socialists’ participation in terms of their group sessions was quite formal in nature (lecture, discussion, etc.) and was concerned with education and theoretical debate, replicating practices from the socialist movement. Drawing on contemporary theory the chapter argues that the socialist students compare greatly to other young people who may be cast as ‘radically unpolitical’ because of the socialists’ sober adherence to an old ideology.

The Noise Upstairs (NU) is a monthly freely improvised (‘free improv’) music night with a home above a café bar in a mixed/student suburb of Manchester. This chapter uses the perspective of critical improvisation studies to reflect on aspects of a performance ethnography carried out by the authors, both of whom are performers and one of whom (Hunter) curates the NU night for the NU collective. Free improv is a post-1960s set of meta-musical practices related to but contesting both ‘jazz’, ‘free jazz’, ‘new music’ and ‘experimental’ music. In it, real-time co-creation and negotiation of social-and-musical relationships are paramount. Consequently, the question of whether a politics of sorts is enacted in the dialogic and multilateral socialities generated in free improv is a substantive one. In addressing it, the authors deploy some concepts from the ‘affective turn’ in social theory to review how the general milieu and out-of-the-hat ensemble-formation approach adopted at NU in fact enables a ‘minor’ micro-political practice of participating differently to be established there. Arising from that discussion, and in line with a key theme of the wider PARTISPACE study, the authors then discuss whether that politics might meaningfully (and usefully) be articulated in terms of ‘democracy’.

Since 2015, the authors of this chapter have been working together through a formal partnership between Manchester Metropolitan University and the 10 youth offending teams (YOTs) in the Greater Manchester region of north west England. ¹ This partnership, termed the Greater Manchester Youth Justice University Partnership (GMYJUP), is the first of its kind in a youth justice context. GMYJUP has predominately focused on strengthening justice-involved children's participation in decision-making processes and embedding meaningful participation in youth justice service delivery and practice (Smithson et al., 2020; Smithson & Gray, 2021; Smithson & Jones, 2021). In this chapter, the authors outline the Child-First narrative that is becoming increasingly apparent in the youth justice system in England and Wales, before describing our own body of participatory work which has resulted in the co-creation (with justice-involved children) of a transformative framework of practice that we term Participatory Youth Practice (hereafter referred to as PYP). The chapter goes on to provide a candid account of the facilitators and barriers that youth justice practitioners have encountered when endeavouring to embed PYP into existing youth justice processes. The authors conclude with a consideration of the value of child-centred practice for children and practitioners.